[Asrg] New Version Notification for draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-07

[Daniel Feenberg]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Ian Eiloart wrote:

>
>
> --On 14 October 2008 13:31:06 -0400 der Mouse <mouse at Rodents-Montreal.ORG> 
> wrote:
>
>>>> Because of the importance of the Internet in general, I would
>>>> suggest that RFCs include a legal considerations section for aiding
>>>> lawmakers, where relevant.
>>> I really don't think it's a good idea for us technonerds to be giving
>>> legal advice.  Just think of the technical advice that lawyers would
>>> give us, and then ask yourself why ours would be any better.
>> 
>> Besides, which jurisdiction(s) would the legal considerations be for?
>> 
>
> I guess the point would be to direct future legislation, rather than to try 
> to reflect current legislation. But, I don't think that RFCs are a great 
> place to lobby for legislation.
>

In many jusrisdictions, and in many court cases, the judge will need to 
establish the "customs of the trade". RFCs can be introduced to help 
inform the judge of these customs. So an RFC can have legal significance, 
even if it isn't legal advice, or law itself. We wouldn't want the RFC to 
contain material that would mislead a judge in such a situation.

It isn't a matter of writing law that is valid for every country on earth, 
but of correctly damping the expectations of spammers for spam delivery, 
so that judges will understand that the spammer has "no reasonable 
expectation" of delivery. Of course statutes can override custom, but that 
is not the business of the RFC.

Daniel Feenberg


>
> -- 
> Ian Eiloart
> IT Services, University of Sussex
> x3148
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> Asrg at irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
>